to play bocce ball. you can be 4 years old or 90 years old. it would a -- have a calming effect on the area. we envision office tournaments, families playing together, neighbors playing together. visitors even playing together. currently just in herman plaza in the median strip located between the two embarcadero roadways are very busy and management has received complaints from farmers market patrons and building tenants about the noise of the skate boarders and the so-called music. i have encountered this first hand so -- i see my time is up but i would definitely support and my neighborhood network supports the bocce ball courts. thank you. >> --

supervisor maxwell: any further public comment on this item? seeing none, then public comment is closed. planning department? would you please come forward? oh, rec and park, i'm sorry. i believe had you some comments, you were hearing some things and wanted to make some clarifying comments? >> sure. just a few quick comments. there is absolutely no plan for a fence as part of this. it's very open. the analogy i've been using is it's like one of our city basketball courts where people can come and bring their basketball and play. it's just a pickup game spot. and we do have an existing m.o.u. between d.p.w. and boston properties to maintain justin herman plaza and this bocce ball court if accepted will continue to be maintained as it is currently. supervisor maxwell: any other colts?

supervisor chiu and then supervisor mar. supervisor chiu: so the local 61 students and apprentices willing involved in constructing the field and the boston properties is the, kind of course the management of the area. is local 261 going to be involved with any of the maintenance of the courts afterwards? >> yes. supervisor mar: yes. supervisor maxwell: supervisor chiu? supervisor chiu: just closing comments. first i want to address some of the issues that were raised in public comment. ernestine, i am very open to considering a business improvement district for the downtown area as i have a strong proponent in fisherman's whatever and other parts of the district and i have let the business community and property

owners know that if that is of interest they would need -- i would need their support to move forward with that. i think it's approximately important to emphasize that this is a gift we can give back. if at some point down the road we decide as a city than it's not the best use, i am very open to having that conversation and i look forward to having the conversation with where rincon hill and others are going to go advise is -- vis-a-vis the open space. and it is ms. crowley's birthday and i want to thank you for taking part of your day to come here and be a hart of this with it -- is.

supervisor maxwell: happy birthy, yes. and i too want to thank the union folks for coming down and looking at this as something you can do. i hope you will consider maybe other projects you can be part of in our estimate i want to thank all of you involved in bringing this together. it's giving a gift. seems like it should be an easy thing but in san francisco there are a lot of people that want to be a part of that giving, that you're giving to so they all want to have a say in that. supervisor mar in supervisor mar: i did have one other question. i want to thank the donors for creating a beautiful spot that gets people out and moving with a sport i'm not that familiar with, but i did see the youtube display of what bocce ball is and i'm looking forward to getting out there and trying it. i'm glad that this hasn't

become an issue of pitting bocce ball players with children's playgrounds. i know that's an issue with some of the residents but my hope is that the businesses and others that support this will look at this as -- look at also good sites for potential playground spaces but i know that will take some time. thank you for bringing this forward. supervisor maxwell: and i have played bocce ball and it's fun. it's a good sport to play. after that, colleagues, without further -- actually, if we could adopt the amendment? supervisor maxwell: all right. why don't we accept the amendment and the legislation as amended. so moved. madame clerk, is there any further business before -- before this committee? >> no, there are no further items. supervisor maxwell: colleagues, this meeting is adjourned.

>> the evening and welcome to the september 15 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. the presiding official is president peterson. commissioner hwang is absent this evening. the deputy city attorney is here to provide the board with any lead -- annie needed legal advice this evening. i am the board executive director. in the front row, we have representatives from the department of building inspection. the acting zoning director is also here representing the planning department and the planning commission. we also have with us commanding officer of the san francisco police department permit sector and a representative of the municipal transportation agency division of taxis and accessible services.

i cannot see if anyone else is here. we will also have a representative of the department of public health. i will go over the meeting guidelines and the swearing in process. the board requests you turn off all phones in pages -- pager so there will not disturb the proceeding. please carry on conversations in the hallway. appellants, permit holders, and permit responders each have seven minutes to present their cases and three minutes for rebuttals. people affiliated with these parties must include the comments within that period. members who are not affiliated with the parties have up to three minutes to address the board and no rebuttals. please speak into the microphone. to assist the board in the accurate preparation of minutes, you are asked to submit a speaker or business card to me when you come up to speak. speaker cards are available on the left side of the podium.

the board welcomes your comments and suggestions. their satisfaction surveys on the podium for your convenience. if you have questions about requesting a hearing, please speak to me during a break or after the meeting, or call our office tomorrow. you can also visit us at 1660 mission street room 304. this meeting is broadcast on cable channel 78 and rebroadcast on friday starting at 4:00 on channel 26. these are available for purchase from sfgtv. i will swear in or affirm those who intend to testify at tonight's hearings. please stand, raise your right hand, and say "i do" after you have been sworn in or a firm. do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

moving on to item one, public comment, is there any member of the public who wishes to speak on an item which is not on tonight's agenda? please step forward if there is. >> san francisco has adopted the 2007 california building code. section 108 appeals board is part of this in the city did not file an amendment. this section has the force of law and the state mandated to be uniformly used by each party. by creating your own laws, you have prevented rights to an independent housing or local board of appeals as stated in section 108.08. under the police power granted

by the constitution, the county and the city have authority to govern subject to the limitation that the exercise this power within the territorial limits insubordinate to state law. there is an appellate court court case that ruled local governments must adopt this pursuant to state law. california health and safety code section 179.60 article 1 -- the building department of every city and county show and force within its jurisdiction all the provisions published in the state building code standards code. the california department of housing and community development has adopted section 108.08, and they state "prior to making any modifications or establishing more restrictive building standards, the government body shall make

filings showing these modifications are due to local climactic, geological, anthropological, or topographical additions -- conditions." the city did not do this. it specifically states, " appointment's shall not be employees of the jurisdiction." commissioner fung did a stretch in planning and has an architectural firm in san francisco. some may find your loyalties questionable. commissioners peterson and garcia do not meet the minimum core requirements of section 108. 08. your position do with very technical issues. you seeking permission from planning or building is the same as having an employee of the jurisdiction sitting in your position. i am not an attorney, but i

believe you can be sued personally for your actions because you are making judgments on issues and the law says you are not qualified. i have three letters. one is from the department of housing and community development that says they do not have any findings for san francisco for this code. i have a letter from the clerk of the board of supervisors. they cannot find any amendments to this section. i have a letter from the cbsc. they say the planning commission did not submit an ordinance that modify section 108.08, so it is as published. you do not qualify. thank you very much. >> is there any other speaker under number one? please step forward. >> i am the director of the san

francisco open government and advocacy coalition. i have a picture on the overhead. i would like that to remain up for about 30 seconds. one of the problems with many of the boards and commissions in the city is that the people who come before them come in the position of a supplicant. they either want to to do something or refrain from doing something which has a material impact on their home or property, or in many cases their lives. i come from a strictly constitutional and legal perspective in that i see people constantly having their rights violated. i feel i can talk as a non- interested party in their matters and how they are handled. there are two issues that usually come before this board, main ideas. one is the content. that is the actual cases that come before you. the other is problems -- not only how you handle those

individual cases but how you conduct business in general. some of you have been challenged on your qualifications to sit on this board. i have noticed a certain umbrage being taken, as if someone is doing something wrong. what they are doing is exercising their rights under the first amendment of the constitution to petition the government for redress of grievances. there was an old cartoon called "pogo." one of the favorite expressions in that was, "we have met the enemy, and they is us." what people forget is you are simply another map arm of the government. as a result, you feel no responsibility to help the disadvantaged. i came before you talking about a case and one person did mention there seemed to be due process issues. it was something you completely

avoided. i will submit to you again. perhaps there was no new information to consider in her request for reconsideration because the department withheld information from her. anyone who had any interest in justice would be at least willing to go to the sunshine ordinance task force website and listen to the multiple hearings at which the department of building inspection came in and did things which made it obvious they were doing everything they could to withhold documents that were necessary to her prosecuting her request for reconsideration. in fact, i will ask you to remember one thing that president harry truman said. when you start to think i do not like being challenged -- if you cannot stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. for anyone who tries to stop someone from talking, remember you are violating their constitutional as well as their civil rights.

>> thank you. any other speakers? cnet non-, we will move on to item two, -- seeing none, will move on to item 2, commissioner question and comment. vice president goh: after an issue regarding 565 marina boulevard, i ask for a follow- up. i believe there was a letter submitted to the executive director of cbi. do we have a report file in that letter? >> i did receive a response from a member of her staff indicating there were looking at rescinding the cancellation of the subject permit. they will inform the parties, and they agreed to inform me as well. vice president goh: think you for following up on that. >> any other commissioner

comments or questions? is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, can move into item 3, the adoption of minutes. before you for consideration and adoption are the board meetings from september 8, 2010. vice president goh: on the public comment section, i did not remember ray hartz mentioning the property. i did not listen to the hearing again to hear whether or not he mentioned the property. "reference to an appeal at that address. -- >> heat referenced an appeal at that address. any other comments on minutes? president peterson: i will move to adopt. is there any public comment?

this is a motion to adopt the minutes as written. commissioner fung: aye. vice president goh: aye. commissioner garcia: aye. >> the boat is 4-0. the motion passes. we are moving on to item four. it is the adoption of findings. 4a is in regards to appeal 10- 205, koehler vs sfpd. the board voted to uphold the denial of the tougher permit with the adoption of findings at a later time. the public hearing was held and closed on august 18 and was scheduled today for further consideration. the matter was continued to

allow time for parties to respond in writing to the proposed findings. >> we have left copies of revised findings. they were revised to make some technical requests -- technical corrections. copies have also been destroyed it did to the parties. with the president's consent, i will give the parties each three minutes to address the board. >> my name is ann seldon. i have been asked to read a statement from peter koehelr. our permit to operate should never have been denied or revoked. we proved all the allegations from the march 10 denial false in our april 1 brief to your board. your findings do not reflect this at all. we would like to know how your board could summarily dismiss our efforts to remain operational by giving credence to accusations come here say,

and hyperbole by officers and people who bear a grudge against us. the history is clear. the sergeants were verbally contacting and the mailing our customers that our permit has been revoked three weeks prior to our hearing on march 10. our clients told us they could not do business with us because our permit had been revoked before we had even gotten to the march 10 hearing. as you know, the nile hearings stripped us of our property rights and any due process. nothing we could have said at that san francisco dp hearing-- pd hearing would have made a difference. that is why we came to you. we would like to know how your board can support the elimination of the 25-year business with 11 police contracts without any due process.

you should've taken more care in determining the truth and avoiding the rush to judgment. you were supposed to protect us from manifest injustice. you did not. we can to you for a fair assessment. why did your board refer to new acquisitions provided after the march 10 hearing? they bear no relevance to the appeal hearing we requested. we want those records deleted. we were made out to be criminals. you do not even know us. we are respected in the bay area. we were called by the san mateo county sheriff's office to help clear the way for fire trucks at the san bruno fire last week. we were the only auto service at the scene. we led the procession across the bay bridge after the earthquake because we towed over 50 cars for free during that san francisco disaster. we also took the truck and trailer that melted the 580 freeway for free. we are one of to talk truckdriver cert

classifications. -- one of two tow-truck driver certification classifications. we have been driven out of business. if you maintain your findings, you have invoked the power to rewrite the code and revoke without due process. did you for the opportunity to brief you. -- thank you for the opportunity to brief you on our comments. president peterson: thank you. sergeant? >> good evening, commissioners. i am from the police department permit section. also present on the off chance she has any further questions is officer rossi from the

commercial vehicle unit. he is an expert on tow issues and enforcement. i reviewed the new and amended findings. i believe they are an accurate reflection of this board's decision. my understanding as far as why the matter was put over to the state -- the major reason was commissioner garcia's concern the findings reflected facts or issues that occurred after the hearing. however, it is now clear to me that what mr. koheler was referring to was facts or issues the report after the police during on march 10, not after this board's hearing in april. as we all know, this is a hearing de novo.

that's an issues that occur between the two hearings should be admissible. with regard to other issues raised, without re-litigating things we dealt with at the april hearing, i will reject any klans of retaliation -- any claims of retaliation. it seems that part of p and s's defense is a super aggressive offense and to throw these baseless allegations that members of the police department that are merely doing their job well. the bottom line is that the applicant operated his alto firm

illegally and intentionally without a permit, intentionally charging excessive fees. he intentionally refute the police department opportunity to review his records. he has a history of the same conduct in san mateo county. we had no choice but to take the actions we did. since each violation is a misdemeanor under the law, we are talking about a chronic problem with multiple misdemeanors. thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? please step forward. if you could fill out the speaker card with you are done? >> i am a citizen of san francisco, eighth generation.

i am not representing either party here. however, i am a witness to one of the items that has been mentioned in writing and again this evening. as far as allowing the inspection of a permit, i was there that day. two officers came. they asked to make comments or take the paper work with them. mr. koheler said you could not take them from his place of business. that is it. as far as the police doing their job, as a citizen i wonder about that. the cuts are very clear. the cuts that have been referred to over all of this process of 10 months and for hearings are very clear that there must be a conviction. i see no evidence of any

conviction that the codes call for, whether the operator has been arrested for under the influence, for theft, or for any of these items. i see and hear a smokescreen. look behind the curtain. i am glad we have a superior being in the police department. in the last hearing on august 10, they stated those codes were poorly written. i wonder how many attorneys wrote on that, only to be told they were bad law. we need to look to the sergeant for what law is right? the other issue, regarding this comment made about towing for excessive fees, the code of the san francisco police department -- the maximum is when they call

for a tow firm to come out and tell a car, in a parking zone, in an accident. when the police department calls, the toy department can only charge the maximum amount. department does not set any private contract code at all. it is unconscionable that the surgeon can say that he is charging too much of a fee for the code. he does not have a private contract tow with the sfpd. these are with private property owners. in the filings you have there, there are seven or eight other police service contracts in other cities in municipalities in the state of california that have that the set. according to the city attorney's office of san francisco, if he can charge that the, everyone can charge that the in a private contract.